Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 18:32:37 03/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 15:42:15, odell hall wrote:
>
>On March 24, 1999 at 14:45:52, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On March 24, 1999 at 13:59:06, KarinsDad wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>Everyone is entitled to their opinon. Nobody is debating that. Nobody is saying
>>>that there was anything wrong with the "initial post".
>>>
>>>The problem comes down to two small words: "is a"
>>>
>>>x is a cheat
>>>y is a liar
>>>z is a bad person
>>>
>>>This is slander. It is irrelevant that the x, y, or z, is depicting a handle as
>>>opposed to a real name. If x is called a cheat here and on other forums, that
>>>will be picked up at the chess servers where people will do tells of the nature
>>>"x is a cheat, why is he here on the abc chess server?", and even more malicious
>>>problems will occur.
>>>
>>>I won't even go into how much freedom to abuse our media has due to their high
>>>priced lawyers.
>>>
>>>As long as there are people, there will be people pointing fingers at others.
>>>When I signed up for this forum, I thought I was going somewhere where the
>>>finger pointing would be minimized (due to the signup agreement).
>>Slander implies two additional things:
>> * Intent to harm (having ill will towards the one slandered)
>> * The charges are not true.
>>
>>For instance, I may say "Adolf Hitler was a murderous butcher."
>>Even if he were alive, it would not be slander. The charges are true.
>>
>>Suppose someone Karinsdad respects tells Karinsdad that Dann Corbit is a lying
>>sack of fetid excrement. If Karinsdad repeats that charge, it is not slander,
>>because he has no intent to harm, he is only repeating what he has heard and
>>believed to be truthful.
>>
>>On the other hand, I agree 100% that this forum should never be used for
>>personal attacks. It detracts from the purpose and never has any good
>>consequences.
>>
>>There is always news:alt.flame for people who want to vent.
>
>
>Hi Dann
>
>
> The definition of slander that I found is "A false Statement or statements
>intended to injure someone's reputation or well being". First of all no one has
>even remotely proven that I 1. Made a false statement 2. Had any intent of
>harming anyone's reputation. If I was out to hurt this person, I would have
>given his real name. Although I doubt that would really hurt him, or even
>injure. No one knows this person from adam, and they know his alias even less.
>It is no less them rediculous for anyone to even continue with this nonsense.
>My motivation in Posting the orignal article, was the same as if I had posting
>an interesting chess Problem. Simple curiosity!! However once I found my
>suspicions were confirmed, I felt no hesitation, in revealing that person's
>handle. I would do the same thing again. And if this forum cannot accept that,
>then perhaps this is the wrong forum for me. But I have recieved no rebuke from
>any moderator here. There are two indivisual in this forum, that continue to
>condemn me, although what the motivation is for this behavior I have no clue.
Hey Odell,:))!!
You seem to be handling the heat pretty well!:)) I am glad you didnt name a
mugger on this forum or you'd have ended up hung!! HAHAHAHAhA!!!
all joking aside you named a handle of someone who has mostlikely cheated
you took out the name from the top of the game so to protect his alias then you
gathered an overwhelming(in my opinion)amount of evidence to basically know for
sure he cheated and now you have 2people who are offended by the acussation
well your not here to please everyone and i liked this post it was very
informative in a way to figure out with good percentage if someone is cheating
or not.
Thanks,
Lanny
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.